Dismissed

Kunjimol.P.D v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Aug 2017OP(KAT)/277/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the petition challenging the KAT order denying promotion to Lady Health Inspectors. The Court held that Central Government training suggestions are not binding on the State, and the limited No Objection Certificate stipulated that promotion would follow normal seniority, not training substitutes.

What did the court decide?

Interference with the Tribunal's order declining the petitioners' claim for promotion is declined.

Kunjimol.P.D Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/25TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

---------------------------

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDERIN OA(EKM 67/2015 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 08-06-2016

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

KUNJIMOLE.P.D AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.YOHANNAN, WORKING AS J.P.H.N. GRADE-I, C.H. CENTRE, ALANALLUR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678601. 2. SHINE GEORGE AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. GEORGE THOMAS, WORKING AS J.P.H.N. GRADE-I, P. H. CENTRE, KURUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD, PIN-678599.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NAVEEN.T SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR SMT.CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.V.S.ABHISHEK

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM, PIN-695001.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695035.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH

¶14

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(KAT).No. 277 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO 67/2015 FILED BY THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE KAT ALONG WITH ANNXURES EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA NO 67/2015 DTD 28/7/2015 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN OA NO 67/2015 DTD 4/1/2016 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA NO 67/2015 BEFORE THE KAT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A11 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 8/6/2016 IN OA (EKM) NO 67/2015 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

¶18

/TRUE COPY/

¶19

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶20

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V., JJ

¶21

¶22

O.P.(KAT) No. 277 of 2017

¶23

¶24

Dated, this the 16^th day of August, 2017

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Ramachandra Menon , J.

¶27

Correctness and sustainability of Ext. P5 Order passed by the Tribunal declining to grant the relief sought for in the O.A., for being promoted as Health Inspector based on the training undergone by the applicants, as per Annexure A1 Scheme of the Central Government, and the certificates obtained [copies of which have been produced as Annexures A4 and A6], is the subject matter of challenge in this Original Petition.

¶28

The factual matrix reveals that the petitioners herein, on proving their credentials, were identified, selected and appointed as JPHN Gr. II and they were subsequently promoted as JPHN Gr. I as well. While so, the Central Government issued Annexure A1 notification dated 19.12.2012 providing a career path for the inservice cadre Nursing personnel working in the Public Health Department, as a policy decision taken by the Ministry for providing training to the deserving candidates, to cut open the pathway for

¶29

O.P.(KAT) No. 277 of 2017

¶30

: 2 :

¶31

being promoted as Lady Health Inspectors. It was accordingly that the petitioners were identified and sent for training, based on the NOC issued by the State/Department.

¶32

The petitioners successfully completed the training and obtained Annexures A4 and A6 certificates, securing marks as borne by Annexures A3 and A5. Petitioners thereupon put forth a claim for being promoted as Lady Health Inspectors, based on the said training qualification, as they were having all other requirements to be promoted to the said post. The qualification/training obtained from the Central Government Institute was sought to be treated as equivalent training qualification stipulated under the Special Rules for promotion to the post in question. The claim was considered and rejected by the State/Department as per Annexures A9 and A10, which made the petitioners to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A. with the following prayers :

¶33

“(i) Call for the records leading to Annexure A9 and A10 and set aside the same

¶34

(ii) To declare that the certificate course in health supervisor (promotional training in ANMs) obtained by the applicants are qualification sufficient to be considered for promotion to higher post.

¶35

(iii) To declare that the applicants are entitled to be

¶36

O.P.(KAT) No. 277 of 2017

¶37

: 3 :

¶38

considered for promotion to the post of Lady Health Inspector.

¶39

(iv) To issue a direction, directing the respondents to promote the applicants to the post of Lady Heath Inspector forthwith.

¶40

(v) To declare that the no objection certificate issued, if any, with a condition that the completion of training will not be considered for promotion as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶41

(vi) and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including costs.”

¶42

The claim was resisted from the part of the Department, pointing out that the reliefs sought for by the applicants were outside the purview of the relevant Rules, which clearly stipulated that the persons concerned had to successfully complete 'the training for Health Supervisors' for a period of six months, as borne by Ext. R1(c). It was also pointed out that senior most persons were being identified and sent for training and based on successful completion, they were being promoted, based on the seniority. In so far as the Rule was specific, the Department was not in a position to accede to the request made by the petitioners and hence the O.A. was sought to be dismissed as devoid of any merit.

¶43

O.P.(KAT) No. 277 of 2017

¶44

: 4 :

¶45

After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal held as per Ext. P5 Order, that there was no dispute with regard to the qualification and experience to be possessed, which included Health Supervisors' training for a period of six months. Such training is being conducted by the State/Department. There was no case for the applicants that, by virtue of the seniority, they had reached the requisite level to be sent for training. Merely for the reason that they had already been sent for training, based on the NOC issued, by itself will not confer any vested right upon them, to be promoted to the post of Lady Health Inspectors. It was also pointed out that the training now completed by the petitioners cannot be substituted for the qualification provided under the Special Rules. While granting Ext. R2(a) NOC, it was categorically made clear that the NOC was being issued on condition that, on completion of training, they would not be considered for promotion in service and it will be based on the normal seniority in the select list. The said stipulation remains and there is no challenge with regard to the said rider. It was on the basis of the said NOC, that the petitioners proceeded to join the course and completed training. This being the position, after completion of the training, it is not open for the petitioners to take a 'U turn' and contend that such training shall

¶46

O.P.(KAT) No. 277 of 2017

¶47

: 5 :

¶48

be treated as equivalent qualification for promotion to the post in question as per the Special Rules. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the O.A was dismissed as per Ext.P5.

¶49

We find no irregularity, much less any illegality, with regard to the course pursued by the Tribunal; which is perfectly within the four walls of law, being in conformity with the Special Rules. That apart, it is to be noted that Annexure A1 issued by the Central Government as such will not be binding on the State Government, who is the employer in the instant case. Even otherwise, what is contained in Annexure A1 is only a 'suggestion' and it is left to the State Government to have it adopted, as discernible from the second paragraph of the said proceedings. This being the position, this Court cannot but hold that the O.P is devoid of any merit. Interference is declined and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶50

sd/-

¶51

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

sd/-

SHIRCY V., JUDGE

kmd

/True copy/

P.A. to Judge

Kunjimol.P.D v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjimol.P.D v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Temple Advisory Committee Vs the Secretary

The Secretary , Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director,Ksad

V.P.Thomas Vs the Director General

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Jayalekshmi P.B.

The State of Kerala Vs Ponnamma Kuriakose